3 ms·
This is not the interpretation given by enforcement agencies, it seems: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-14/mapping-who-lives-in-border-patrol-s
by coliveira 6y ago
This is not the interpretation given by enforcement agencies, it seems:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-14/mapping-who-lives-in-border-patrol-s-100-mile-zone https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-14/mapping-w...
Maybe what you say was the origina intent, but we know how the enforcement agencies love to reinterpret the laws to their advantage.
- jcranmer 6y agoI looked into the case a touch more (see https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6106095/michigan-immigrant-rights-center-v-department-of-homeland-security/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6106095/michigan-immigr...). The key relevance I see is https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.316027/gov.uscourts.mied.316027.19.0.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.316027... (which includes the CBP's response to the allegations of the 100-mile border being counted from the coastline), where the CBP sort of denies that this is the case. It also sort of doesn't deny it, but this can very easily be a case of "we don't want to stake out a position in legal documents if we don't have to" (which is not an unreasonable thing for a lawyer to do whether the ACLU's claim is right or wrong).
- coliveira 6y agoI'm pretty sure the ACLU wouldn't invent a case regarding border laws if they're not being used to persecute people. You seem to be asking the ACLU to prove that the law is correct as a prerequisite to fight against abuses of this law.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]